Political Report: AHSA and Anti-Gun Groups

AHSA's deep relationship with the major gun-ban groups
has already been thoroughly documented. AHSA's role as an anti-gun
shell operation for political misdirection was admitted in sworn
testimony.

Our political opponents played
their cards quietly this election. The word was out to downplay gun
control and play up lip service to our Second Amendment rights.
Well before the elections, House Democrat leadership nearly fell
over themselves to profess that they had no intentions of moving
forward to restrict our rights if they gained control of
Congress.

But today is a new day, and the enemies of freedom
now disclaim their own election strategy. After working so hard to
conceal their agenda, they now claim it was a centerpiece of the
elections. Paul Helmke, the new president of the group formerly
known as Handgun Control, Inc., told the Los Angeles Times that he
"has high hopes for the assault weapons ban." "Guns are a tricky
issue," Helmke said, "but the elections show there's nothing to be
afraid of."

The American Hunters and Shooters Association paints
itself as pro-gun, despite its lengthy roster of staff ties to, and
board support for, extremist anti-gun groups. Just before the
elections, it erected a similarly rickety façade for its
"pro-hunting" credentials. The coldly calculated political
maneuver, involving sham mailings and radio ads, was designed
precisely to attack NRA and to influence the U.S. Senate race in
Missouri.

We will make sure that
opportunities for tests of true intentions are not long in coming.
Ours is not a partisan issue--we have longtime friends and
committed foes within both political parties. We always have and
always will. We must work in the new Congress to ensure that our
allies in both parties are given the opportunity to present our
agenda, and that means that our opponents will be given the same
opportunity.

It sounds straightforward, but it won't be.
Our reform proposals will be demonized, and the new push for
restrictions on our rights will be shielded under the false rubric
of "gun safety." The deceptions will
continue.

In fact, our opponents opened a new front of
strategic deception before these elections were even decided. Loyal
readers will recall the pre-election emergence of the American
Hunters and Shooters Association (see "Anti-Gunners
Don Camo As Election Looms," ). The group painted itself as
pro-gun, despite its lengthy roster of staff ties to, and board
support for, extremist anti-gun groups.

Just before the election, it erected a
similarly rickety façade for its "pro-hunting" credentials. But
this, too, was no more than a coldly calculated political maneuver
involving sham mailings and radio ads designed precisely to attack
the NRA and influence Missouri's 2006 u.s. Senate
race.

The first mailer arrived in hunters' mailboxes
just days before the election, claiming, "The NRA is Selling Us
Out." It attacked NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre by
name and claimed that NRA is "supporting politicians who are trying
to take away our access to public lands." The second mailing asked
"Why isn't the NRA standing up to Washington bureaucrats and
politicians to conserve game areas and protect free access to
public lands?" Laughable and false though these statements were,
they were easily topped by the new slogan AHSA affixed to its
mailings: "Protecting Our Gun Rights and the Lands We
Love."

ahsa's deep relationship with the major
gun-ban groups has already been thoroughly documented. ahsa's role
as an anti-gun shell operation for political misdirection was
admitted in sworn testimony. And ahsa's efforts on behalf of
wildlife and habitat conservation are simply non-existent. If AHSA
"loves our lands" the way they "protect our guns," hunters and
wildlife had better watch out.

NRA, on the other hand, has a long and
documented record on behalf of wildlife conservation, particularly
in protecting hunter access to public lands. Ironically, nra's
efforts to conserve wildlife are showcased nowhere more prominently
than in Missouri, where NRA is working with the Great Rivers
Habitat Alliance to protect thousands of acres of wetlands from
development.

The true intent behind these lies was soon
apparent, when the hastily formed AHSA-PAC (political action
committee) began airing crude radio ads in the Missouri capital.
Anonymous voices, sounding eerily like Waylon Jennings narrating
the old tv series "The Dukes of Hazzard," made the same allegations
as the farcical mailings, but added the proviso, "That's why
hunters should support Claire McCaskill for the
Senate."

Now the goal of the campaign was clear. A
relentless barrage of negative, baseless attacks were designed to
strip the credibility of NRA and build support for the opponent of
Jim Talent, the NRA-PVF-endorsed
candidate.

But these attacks were demonstrably false.
They did not even comply with the rudiments of campaign finance
law. The mailings were paid for by the AHSA Foundation, an
"educational" arm that, under tax law, cannot participate in
federal elections. And the radio ads did not carry the required
federally-mandated disclaimer statement. We quickly documented the
falsehoods and failings of the AHSA campaign in a report of nearly
50 pages, which we distributed to the radio stations airing the
ads. Stations pulled the ads off the air within hours of receiving
our extensively documented complaint.

But had the damage been done? Quite possibly.
One thing is certain--Claire McCaskill went on to win the Senate
race, and the NRA-PVF-endorsed candidate
lost.

I am equally sure that we haven't heard the
last from AHSA. When they do pop up again, it will not be in
support of pro-gun or pro-hunting bills, but in forums carefully
chosen to attack our credibility, confuse our supporters and defeat
our allies.

We have the infrastructure to meet these
challenges and defeat them. We will continue to monitor ahsa's
continuing attempt to deceive hunters and gun owners throughout the
country. And we will continue to stand behind our agenda, proud of
our mission and unashamed of our strength. AHSA has not heard the
last from us, either. Not by a long shot.

They say that imitation is the sincerest form
of flattery. But we should refrain from feeling flattered--because
AHSA is anything but sincere.

The NRA Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) is NRA's political action committee. The NRA-PVF ranks political candidates — irrespective of party affiliation — based on voting records, public statements and their responses to an NRA-PVF questionnaire.

Paid for by NRA Political Victory Fund (www.NRAPVF.org) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

WHAT THE GRADES MEAN ×

PRINT NOW

The NRA-PVF is non-partisan in issuing its candidate grades and endorsements. Our decisions are not based on a candidate's party affiliation, but rather on his or her record on Second Amendment issues. The NRA is a single issue organization. The only issues on which we evaluate candidates seeking elected office are gun-related issues.

Indicates an NRA Endorsed Candidate.

A+

A legislator with not only an excellent voting record on all critical NRA issues, but who has also made a vigorous effort to promote and defend the Second Amendment.

A

Solidly pro-gun candidate. A candidate who has supported NRA positions on key votes in elective office or a candidate with a demonstrated record of support on Second Amendment issues.

AQ

A pro-gun candidate whose rating is based solely on the candidate's responses to the NRA-PVF Candidate Questionnaire and who does not have a voting record on Second Amendment issues.

B

A generally pro-gun candidate. However, a "B" candidate may have opposed some pro-gun reform or supported some restrictive legislation in the past.

C

Not necessarily a passing grade. A candidate with a mixed record or positions on gun related issues, who may oppose some pro-gun positions or support some restrictive legislation.

D

An anti-gun candidate who usually supports restrictive gun control legislation and opposes pro-gun reforms. Regardless of public statements, can usually be counted on to vote wrong on key issues.